Guru Prasad Gupta And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2023 Latest Caselaw 5998 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5003 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Guru Prasad Gupta And Anr.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kant Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Surya Bux Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 16.9.2015 passed by ACJM, court no. 19, Barabanki in application U/s 156(3) CrPC in Criminal Case No. 551 of 2015, Police Station- Satrikh, District- Barabanki.

Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the impugned order dated 16.9.2015 passed by the court concerned in Criminal Case No. 551 of 2015 is erroneous and beyond jurisdiction of learned Magistrate. The application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant with ulterior motive. The dispute relates to the land property and the order passed by the learned Magistrate for registration of FIR and to investigate the matter is against the principles of law.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that this petition is not maintainable against the order of allowing application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as the proposed accused has no legal right to be heard unless and until summoning order is passed against him.

In support of his submission learned A.G.A. has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. WIN Chaddha reported in 1993 SCC (Criminal) 1171 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a proposed accused in an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has got no right to be heard either on the application before the Magistrate or in revision before the revisional court. Hon'ble Apex Court has also affirmed the judgment of this Court in the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 (72) ACC 564 (Allahabad) (Full Bench), wherein this Court has held that an accused does not have any right to be heard before he is summoned by the Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has got no right to raise any objection till the stage of summoning and resultantly he cannot be conferred with a right to challenge the order passed against him under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. prior to his summoning. If the Magistrate has allowed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register FIR and investigate, the petition against such order is not maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

Having heard learned counsel for parties and keeping in view the judgement relied upon by the learned A.G.A., I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2015 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 551 of 2015.

Therefore, this petition U/s 482 CrPC is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated forthwith.

Let this order be communicated to the trial court for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 23.2.2023

Shravan